Identifying the elements of my math teaching life.

Politics

June 28, 2008

I know, I know, that seems like a contradiction in terms. I'm not a libertarian, although I do have a natural aversion to government interference in my personal life (I mean, who doesn't?), and I think that the market is a better option for regulation of some portions of society than many of my fellow liberals probably think it is. But affirmative action (giving some preferences in hiring or college admissions based on race or gender in order to redress the inequalities created by past outright discrimination) is a libertarian's worst nightmare. It doesn't treat all people equally, and it involves government interference in business and education. Many libertarians are now seeing Barack Obama's success and popularity as evidence that affirmative action is no longer necessary. If white people are willing to elect a black man to be their president, this argument goes, surely there can't be all that much day-to-day discrimination anymore, and thus the reasons for affirmative action no longer exist.

The libertarian solution to the problem of blatant discrimination in the workplace or in college admissions is simply to make a minimal law that says "it is illegal to discriminate based on race or gender", and then enforce that law vigorously. The anti-affirmative action stance is voiced in this article on this very subject.

But I have to disagree. Not on principle, but as a practical matter. I simply don't see how that law is enforceable in any practical way. Let's imagine a typical situation in which such a law might be invoked:

A trucking company is located in an urban area that is racially diverse—say, 40% black and 60% white just to simplify. This trucking company has 150 employees, and 6 of them are black (that's 4%). This has been the approximate percentage for a few years when a group of 5 black local residents who were denied jobs there files a suit under this theoretical anti-discrimination law. How should the government handle this?

Approach the owners directly and ask about the disproportionately low hiring rate for black people? The obvious response is simply "They were denied jobs because of their employment history, not because they were black."

Confront the owners with resumés showing that the 5 candidates appear to be well-qualified? Response: "They were not as well-qualified as the other applicants for those jobs."

Demand all records pertaining to all hires over the period of time covered by those applicants' applications, and try to determine whether any racial preference to white people shows up? Response: "I was personally more familiar with the references (previous employers) given by the people we actually hired."

Research all previous employers of all applicants to determine whether the current employer only does business with other racist companies, thus making reliance on references a measure that is inherently biased against black applicants? Response: "I was unaware of any bias in those companies."

Point out how an inability to find more than 4% qualified black employees in a 40% black neighborhood (with 5 qualified applicants already present as parties to the lawsuit) simply strains credulity? Response: "I remember those applicants—I just simply don't think they would have fit in with our work force."

What can the government do here? Second-guess every hiring decision made by this company? What if the company is huge, with decades worth of hiring records? Are we going to tell businesses exactly what kinds of qualifications do and don't matter for the purposes of hiring? Is "not fitting in" an unacceptable reason to deny someone a job? Isn't enforcing such a broad anti-discrimination law simply too intrusive? I would certainly think so if I were in charge of hiring for any company. I'd rather simply be told: "If you want to satisfy us that you're not a racist, you'd better have X% of your workforce be non-white as evidence that you're not an outright racist company." Then I could do my own balancing of "fitting in" with overall workforce composition. That seems a less intrusive way to enforce equal opportunity. We can discuss and argue the validity of any specific formula for X, but a cold statistical analysis has to be a more libertarian solution than case-by-case meddling in every business's hiring process.

Now...will it happen that some qualified white applicant will be denied a job in favor of an arguably less-qualified black person? Unfortunately, probably yes. Although I would bet (without any real way to know for sure) that this would happen less often than a qualified black person losing out to racism.

Note that #5 above seems like a pretty good argument by the time a possibly racist employer has responded to the evidence in such a slippery manner. Yet it is essentially an argument from quotas. We should see quotas not as a way to force a company to hire and promote X% black people, but rather as the least intrusive and most flexible way to obtain evidence of racist or non-racist hiring practices.

Furthermore, note that a white person who is denied a job (supposedly) due to affirmative action will probably consider legal action, and fully expect that their complaint be taken seriously and that the situation will be rectified. I would argue that affirmative action is simply the only practical, large-scale solution to meet that same expectation by black people, who have, in fact, been demonstrably discriminated against historically.

And finally, if it's indeed true that affirmative action is no longer necessary because white people don't typically discriminate based on race anymore, then...well...achieving that X% level of black employees simply won't be difficult, will it? That means that any such law will never again be invoked to challenge a non-racist company, so what's the problem?

June 25, 2008

I know, I know. I've promised more math posts and failed to
deliver. The truth is, it takes quite a while to write a math blog
post because I have to design all the diagrams and equations and
convert them to the right format to upload. So more math posts, I
promise, I promise. Eventually.

But as much as I like math, a much more weighty issue is rising to
prominence: We will elect a new president in about 9.5 months, and
that person will take office in less than a year. I've made no secret
about my disdain for the current administration, and for George W. Bush, in particular. I've also mentioned my admiration for Obama
before. But now I'm more convinced than ever that he is the right
choice by far to be our next president. I know my readership is not
very high, and most people land here for my math pages. But I think my
reasons are good, and I would feel uneasy if I didn't do something here
to tell you what those reasons are, especially with only a week to go
before "superduper" Tuesday. Please feel free to link to this post if
you agree with me (or if you disagree, for that matter). If you must
steal my words without attribution, at least they might help elect the
man.

This is the reason that I hear the least, but it's among the
most important to me. The president, in addition to being our leader,
is our representative—the public face we show the world. Our modern
world is no longer one which appreciates a superpower throwing its
rich, white, establishment weight around. Europeans, South Americans,
Middle Eastern countries, and sworn terrorist enemies resent that to
varying degrees about us. Electing a young, multi-ethnic president
will present a much different face: one that says, "We've come to
realize that our strength comes from our diversity. Our economic
strength resides in the hard work of our immigrants (both willing and
unwilling) in our present and our past, and we all have a stake in our
success. There's more to this country than you are accustomed to
seeing."

Let's face it, the resentment I feel towards George Bush and the
resentment a lot of Republicans feel towards Clinton (both of them,
actually, but Hillary, in particular) are not helpful emotions in
unifying this country to face the world's threats (terrorism, genocide,
environmental degradation, shortages of natural resources like oil and
water). Obama is probably the least divisive candidate on either
side. He attracts very liberal Democrats (Like most of the Kennedys!
C'mon, that's gotta count for something! They're saying: "If you
voted for John, or if you planned to vote for Robert, please vote for
Obama.") and even conservative Republicans who are attracted to his
integrity and his willingness to seek common ground. He isn't perfect,
of course, no candidate is. But he offers the best hope of emerging
from the D./R., RedState/BlueState, Fundamentalist/Secularist stalemate
corner that our politics of division (thank you, Karl Rove and Lee
Atwater) has painted us into. Clinton is the opposite. She's so
divisive that Republicans will come out of the woodworks to vote
against her in the general election. And even if (somehow) she really
were elected, it would just perpetuate the antagonism, and that has
just got to stop.

It's a little clichéd, but true: a president of color will surely
send a strong signal that people of color (and, frankly, all people not
born into White, male, Christian privilege) need no longer assume that
this country won't let them succeed. It won't be an end to racism, of
course, far from it. And I'm even a bit worried that conservatives
will use an Obama presidency to claim that "Racism is over! We don't
need affirmative action or any of that anymore, see!" But despite that
possibility, the benefits outweigh the risks. At the very least, an
Obama candidacy will emphasize the political importance of people of
color, even if loses.

He's smart (extraordinarily so, I think) and confident about it.
This means that he won't, out of insecurity, appoint cronies and yesmen
to important positions around him. Bush didn't pick grown-ups (Gates,
Petraeus) for important posts until late in his presidency, and Clinton
has too many favors from her husband's administration to return to make
wise, considered appointments. I have confidence that Obama wouldn't
hesitate even to name people he disagrees with to cabinet positions if
he respects their accomplishments and thinks they'll do a good job.

He clearly inspires young people to be involved in politics. The
supposed apathy of genX and genY has worried older and "wiser"
generations for a long time now. But Obama is inspiring record numbers
of young people to be involved and vote. While the Baby Boomer
generation might not be happy about losing power to a younger
generation, the change has to happen sometime, and it should happen by
inspiration, not by default.

I believe he has real integrity. For one thing, he has tried to
run a decent campaign. Some tactics that could be considered
underhanded are probably impossible to avoid, but I really believe he
is committed to changing how political campaigns are designed. For
another, he talks about sacrifice and the need to for everyone to
change—his speeches are inspiring without being all warmfuzzyfeelgood
all the time. For a third, he has real experience in the trenches of
community organizing, which he undertook because he believed in it, not
because he thought it would bring him the presidency (kindergarten
aspirations, notwithstanding).

Yesterday I went to see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
If you haven't seen it, you just have to go see it. On the one hand he
doesn't hide his distaste for his political opponents, so if you are a
fan of the current administration, you might be a little turned off.
(Readers of my posts beyond the math posts know that I am no fan of W.,
and that the first clause of this sentence is a serious understatement.)

But Bill O'Reilly himself has praised the movie, and the facts
presented (in what is about 70% just a video of one of Gore's lectures)
are ridiculously convincing. The only doubters of the existence of
global warming and its human cause are obviously people who have money
to lose when (not if, since it's really inevitable) we abandon
the oil economy. The images of retreating glaciers, the charts
comparing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to those of the past, the
history of the movement, they all point so clearly to massive climate
changes that it's hard to come out of that movie cheerful or feeling
good about driving home.

So, my wife and I are inspired enough to be a little more serious
about making our house greener (timed thermostat, insulated water
heater, better windows and attic insulation). And you should be, too.

But the only way to change things on a massive scale is to make
conservation and energy efficiency simply be the norm, putting (as Gore
did in the movie) wasteful practices in the same category of
'unacceptable' as smoking, slavery, and women's not having the vote.
He presents it as a moral decision that has to be implemented in
policy. And lest you think that wonky policy decisions can't have any
real impact, take a look at this satellite picture of the border
between Haiti (which has few restrictions on logging) and the Dominican
Republic (which has more).

This is another place that the current administration has just
failed miserably. Whoever is going to be the next Democratic candidate
for president has a huge opening here. Just like Bush (or maybe Rove
and Cheney) has defined political opposition to be unpatriotic, the
Democrats have an obvious parallel strategy. The "Green is Patriotic"
strategy:

Put people to work in a huge new industry of conservation (building
solar and wind generators, creating infrastructure for alternative
fuels, retrofitting homes to be more efficient, etc.). Become
financially unlinked to the world oil market. Take some pride in
cleaning this country up. Renew our image as the innovative and
benevolent caretakers of the world. Leave wilderness for future
generations to enjoy. How are any of these unpatriotic?

No Republican (except maybe Christine Whitman, who resigned as the
head of the EPA when Bush wouldn't give her the resources to strike any
kind of balance between industrial and environmental concerns, and who
should be welcomed into the Democratic party with a cabinet or
vice-presidential position) can lay serious claim to any kind of mantle
of environmentalism. Which means the Democrats have the moral,
political, and factual high ground here.

I know I didn't invent the phrase "Green is Patriotic", but I
haven't seen it enough, and it certainly hasn't been picked up by any
national-level politicians that I've seen (although I'd be delighted to
be proven wrong on this). So that's my message to Clinton, Obama,
Clark, Edwards, Richardson, or any other presidential possibility.
Please use the phrase often in your speeches.

Gore makes the convincing argument that this is a moral choice we
have to make. Let's take the right side of this, make the choice
early, and hammer away at the wrong answer. Maybe I'm naively
optimistic, but I think that Americans are ready to take a stand on
this. There simply aren't many issues as important as this one.

So now it appears that Bush authorized Cheney to authorize someone
(who turned out to be Libby) to disseminate some information about Iraq
that had (at some point) been classified information. He did it to
counter some of Wilson's charges that the justification for the war was
based on manipulated intelligence. From one of the AP stories:

In a federal court filing last week, the prosecutor in the case said
Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, testified before a
grand jury that he was authorized by Bush, through Cheney, to leak
information from a classified document that detailed intelligence
agencies' conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush
declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public
disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically
direct that Libby be the one to disseminate the information.

Now
there's an argument of semantics going on about whether or not this was
a "leak" or a "declassification". Of course, it almost doesn't
matter. Bush's message to the members of his administration was
obvious: when the chips are down, and someone attacks you politically,
it's fair game to use supposedly secret information to counter the
charges. Whoever decided to leak the fact that Valerie Plame (Wilson's
wife) was an undercover CIA employee was clearly taking his (or her, I
suppose) lead from the president.

Sure, Bush's "declassification" may not have put an American
undercover operative in danger, but who knows what kind of chain of
logic might allow someone to figure out the identity of some intelligence asset somewhere based on it. And sure, Bush may not have meant to project the image that any
leaking would be okay in the service of political defense, but it's
just not such a stretch to think that a conservative zealot would see
that image anway.

This is exactly the problem. George W. Bush doesn't understand what
it means to lead by example. When he says that schools should look at
"both sides" of the evolution non-debate, he gives ammunition to the
even-further-to-the-right players to pick up the ball and run with it.
Which undermines the credibity of his state-of-the-union pledge to bulk
up science education.

When he projects the image (apparently false) that he doesn't really
read the news and just makes decisions from his "gut", he relieves
others in his administration of the responsibility to back up their
actions with sound reasoning.

When he claims that a pre-emptive strike is a legitimate reason for
a military attack, he doesn't recognize that he has just given
permission to any country (say, oh, Iran) to attack any other country (say, oh, Israel) that it claims to perceive as a threat.

When he allows energy industry executives to be the main sources of
information on which his administration bases energy policies, he gives
Tom Delay the okay to simply refuse to listen to any lobbying firm that
doesn't hire Republicans so that Delay won't have to listen to dissent,
either.

When he presides over unprecedented deficit increases without a
single veto of a spending bill, he gives Senators and Representatives
permission to ask for just about any pork-barrel spending that his or
her district "needs".

All the talk about the recent cartoons that have offended Muslims
has missed what I think is an important point. Sure, maybe the
newspapers that printed the cartoons were just being provocative, which
they probably shouldn't have done. Or maybe they had been censoring
themselves for years, which they also shouldn't have done. And the
protesting Muslims who are setting churches and embassies on fire,
should definitely also not be doing that.

But this is what worries me: The protesters are shouting, "Death to
Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish, French, and Norwegian
governments. And the governments keep saying, "It was an independent
newspaper! We think they were idiots to print those cartoons, but we
can't speak for them!" And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to
Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian
governments. And the goverments keep saying, "Uhhhh, it was stupid,
but uhhhh it wasn't us." And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to
Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian
governments. And the governments keep saying, "That's not how a
democracy works, guys." And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to
Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian
governments.

Now, I know that the fundamentalist protesters don't represent all
or even most of the Islamic world. But they speak so loudly with their
actions that they become the de facto voice of Islam. And that
voice is currently saying that Islam doesn't recognize the difference
between the government of a country and its other institutions (like
the press). And this confirms one of the worst fears of the West,
which is that the nations of the Middle East will hold free and fair
elections, and willingly elect governments that do not recognize the
difference between themselves and the other institutions of the country
(like the press and the mosque).

It just convinces us more that democracy as we know it just a poor
form of government for that part of the world. I don't know if that's
true or not. If it is true, it's not because they're "not ready for
democracy yet"—I find that horribly condescending (what makes us so
sure that democracy is a "higher" form of government?). Rather, I
think that that if democracy can't work in the Middle East, it's simply
because the fundamental tenets of democracy and the fundamental tenets
of their brand of Islam just don't mesh. So fine. But if that's the
case, then the current U.S. military operation is doomed to failure,
whether you think they should be there or not.

I don't think I have a logical conclusion here. But I do think that
this conflation of a government with its country's press is a
disturbing one. This fundamental difference in how the protesters and
the West view the press feels like a major obstacle to resolving this
and other future potential problems. Any thoughts?

I know, I know. The whole soundbite culture is damaging to real discourse. We can't stoop to that level. Yada-yada-yada.

So here are my soundbites, in no particular order. This is by no
means a complete list, and I'm sure there are thinking American
liberals who would disagree with some of these. Use them at will, cite
my blog if possible, use them anyway if not. The ideas are more
important than the source.

It takes a village to raise a child. (I didn't say these are all original.)

Anything we consider a right (food, shelter, health care, privacy,
among others) can't be provided to our citizens solely through market
forces; by definition, that will mean someone will do without their
rights.

Tax-and-spend is not ideal, but it's more responsible than spend-but-don't-tax.

Conception and embryonic development is not a mystical, spiritual,
or religious process. It becomes mystical, spiritual or religious when
a pregnant woman decides of her own free will to make a commitment to
loving and caring for the child that the embryo or fetus will become.

Relying on wealth or social standing to make a better life is not dishonorable, but it will never replace service and hard work for the #1 spot on the honor roll.

Truly consensual sex and romantic love between two adults are not, in themselves, immoral.

Telling the economically non-powerful (i.e. workers) that they are
not allowed to benefit from their numbers (i.e. organized labor) is
just mean and unfair.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (It hasn't been said better
since that first time (source).)

The founding fathers were stunningly good at wording the
Constitution in a way that holds up even today in a vastly different
society. But they could not possibly have foreseen changes in
technology. Therefore the one part of the Constitution that mentions
technology (the arms we have a right to bear) might reasonably be
limited without violating the intent of the founders.

The reason I don't want to burn a flag is because I have the right to do so if I did want to.

Hitting someone you claim to love is intolerable. And it's a twisted version of love.

Non-consensual sex, like torture, is barbaric. That's what the word 'barbaric' is for, really.

The single most important goal of technology ought to be sustaining
the continued existence of our species in a way that does minimal
damage to other species.

Freedom really is an infectious idea. Leaving it intact as an
example to the world is the single best defense against those who seek
to undermine it.

My one vote really does matter.

If teachers drove Bentleys, imagine how many kids would say they
want to grow up to be a teacher. (Note: I've heard this sentiment
attributed to Shaq O'Neal, but I can't find it. I'd appreciate help
locating a source.)

People who blame honorably-serving soldiers for the decisions of the government that sent them to war are wrong.

When I was in 9th grade, I learned my place as a brainy kid. There
was a big history test coming up about Napoleon. Somehow, the first
period class had snuck a copy of the test out of the classroom, and a
bunch of kids (in the afternoon class with me) who hadn't studied much
spent their lunch hour memorizing the multiple choice answers. I had
studied, but I also heard enough of their conversation that I knew what
the first 10 answers were supposed to be.

Question 1: e.

Actual Question 1: "What is a coup d'état?"

Answer e: "Napoleon's horse".

The teacher had switched the order of the questions or the answers
or something for the afternoon class. Didn't bother me much. But the
wave of panic across the room was palpable. It wasn't long before I
got a "Psst....what's the answer to number 9?"

My place as a brainy kid was clear. If there's an easy way out, the
rest of the world was going to take it and ignore all the work I did.
But when things got tough, I was a resource for them. Not because they
respected me or my work or intelligence, but because at some level they
knew that they were more popular than me, and that I would help them
because I wanted their respect.

George W. Bush has surrounded himself with smart people: Cheney,
Rice, Rove, Hughes, etc. (Note: I didn't say I agree with those
people, and I don't think they're very wise, but they are
undoubtedly intelligent by almost any measure.) And he pays lip
service to respecting them. He probably thinks he does respect them.
But my inner insecure, respect-wanting 9th-grade brainy kid sees
through the hypocrisy.

His actions speak loud and clear. He can't let Rove just be
smart—he has to be put in his place with a nickname like "turd
blossom". Could it be any clearer that Bush hands out nicknames to
make the brainy kids feel popular?

He claims to not read newspapers. He wants everyone to think that
he runs the country from instinct and guts, not reason and
information. According to a recent Newsweek article, Mr. Bush does
indeed read newspapers. He just doesn't want anyone to know it. It
might ruin his image as one of the popular kids.

According to the same article, he subtly stifles debate while
seeming to encourage it. He asks his generals questions like "Do you
have what you need to complete the mission?" instead of "Tell me, what
do you need to complete this mission?" The message is clear: the
pentagon bosses of the generals have made their funding decisions, and
for the generals to answer "No, I don't have what I need" would imply
that their bosses were wrong. The message of true respect for
intelligence is that the generals in the field are the experts, and
deserve to be asked open-ended questions so their opinions can be
known. Bush just wants the yes or no answer and be done with it.

His administration regularly replaces pesky, disagreeing scientific
experts on medical/environmental/economic/younameit advisory boards
with people who will agree with him. To his administration, scientific
facts are mutable and ignorable in order to fit with its a priori view of the world.

He dignifies the "inane" and "lying" Intelligent Design movement
(the quotes are from the Republican judge's decision in Dover, PA) by
opining that science ought not stifle the supposed debate over
evolution. This is despite a ridiculously overwhelming majority of
professional scientists who don't even acknowledge that there is any
debate. (Overwhelming: about 100 scientists signed a statement in
support of questioning evolution—about 200 scientists named Steve signed a statement saying that Intelligent Design ought not be taught in schools (source).) There is no real debate. That has now been settled in the courts. But we have not heard a retraction from the president.

No Child Left Behind is a fundamental philosophical statement. It
says: the standard of a respectable education is to pass a test
designed to weed out only the very worst-performing kids. The brainy
kids? Well, good for them, but they're not really important to us
right now. George Bush's vision of schools is the one he wishes he
had: clear, step-by-step instructions on how to pass a test, and then
a pat on the back when you manage to (surprise!) pass. It is not the
vision of the good, creative educators: teach kids how to think
outside the box, bring out children's natural curiosity, foster success
through hard work and not through memorization.

The place of brainy kids in George W. Bush's world is clear. He has
no real respect for their work or their intelligence. But when things
get tough, he offers them jobs or nicknames in return for their eager
participation. But he alienates the thinking people who can see
through his charade.

So when your little cheat sheet says "Napoleon's horse", Mr. President, please don't come to us for help. Learn what a coup d'état really is. I think there are some people who might be willing to help you with that.

By which I mean both mathematically and morally. Division is such a
natural idea that I can no longer accept that it might not "come out
evenly". It is still acceptable to have division result in a decimal,
but not in a remainder. Here is my logic:

I call it my theory of Intelligent Division. A search of the text of the bible
reveals that the word "remainder" is only used to describe the outcome
of subtraction, never division. This is a clear indication that a
"remainder" upon division is not an acceptable result. Rather, we must
postulate that in all instances of division, an intelligence greater
than ourselves is guiding the outcome, and such an intelligence would never
allow something as sloppy as a "remainder". Look, for instance, at the
decimal result of any division. There is a clear sign of an
intelligence at work, because the numbers after the decimal point show
non-randomness to a high degree. To ignore that pattern (in favor of
"remainders") would be to ignore the obvious intelligent hand guiding
the process of division.

Our culture has clearly lost its way when so-called "number
theorists" discuss the notion of ugly "remainders". Such immorality
has spawned completely unnatural processes such as "modular arithmetic"
in which 350 times 2 equals 34 ("modulo 666", a clear sign of
unscrupulousness) when we all know it must equal 700. These
"mathematicians" tell everyone that "remainders" are an established
fact in number theory, and that they explain all sorts of facts about
numbers. But they never explain to you that number theory is only
that: just a theory!

And this theory has huge flaws. The most glaring of these is the
remainderist idea that "you can't divide by 0". Any theory with such
huge gaps in the evidence cannot possibly stand up to intense
scrutiny. The bible
contains the word "divide" 129 times (the word "add" only 53 times,
"subtract" not at all, and "multiply" only 48 times), and surely it is
impossible that such a holy operation would be so fatally flawed. The
time is clearly ripe to overthrow the intellectual hold that
remainderists have had on our education system for years.

America's children are being taught about these "remainders" from as
early as 8 or 9 years old, and it is time for change! I demand that
Intelligent Division be taught along side "remainder" division so that
the 8- and 9-year-olds can make an informed decision about what is
mathematically correct. We cannot let the remainderists set the
curriculum for our youth. If you live in a family-oriented school
district (especially in Kansas), please let the school board know that there is an alternative. They can demand that students be exposed to all ways of looking at division, not just the ways the remainderists insist upon. The future of country is at stake here.

Wars are not won without sacrifice, and this war will
require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

So,
let me see if I got this straight Mr. President. The families of the
undeniably brave men and women, largely from
small-town and under-privileged America will have to accept more
sacrifice. I will just have to accept that this war is going to last
much longer than the year or two you claimed at first it would take. I
need more resolve to steel myself against the rising objections of most
of the rest of the world. You know what? I'm not sure I agree with
everything you've done, but we may not have a choice for the time
being. I might be willing to sacrifice, wait, and show resolve.

But will your family sacrifice? Will you ask your daughters to enlist? Will you even raise--no, I'm sorry, just stop cutting--taxes
so you and families like you might have to pay your fair share (which
is, of course a very large share, since American companies connected to
the administration are reaping so many of the benefits)?